BACKGROUND: Strategies to enhance clinicians\' adherence to validated imaging decision rules and increase the appropriateness of imaging remain unclear.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of various implementation strategies for increasing clinicians\' use of five validated imaging decision rules (Ottawa Ankle Rules, Ottawa Knee Rule, Canadian C-Spine Rule, National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study and Canadian Computed Tomography Head Rule).
METHODS: Systematic review.
METHODS: The inclusion criteria were experimental, quasi-experimental study designs comprising randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised controlled trials, and single-arm trials (i.e. prospective observational studies) of implementation interventions in any care setting. The search encompassed electronic databases up to March 11, 2024, including MEDLINE (via Ovid), CINAHL (via EBSCO), EMBASE (via Ovid), Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, and Scopus. Two reviewers assessed the risk of bias of studies independently using the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care Group (EPOC) risk of bias tool. The primary outcome was clinicians\' use of decision rules. Secondary outcomes included imaging use (indicated, non-indicated and overall) and knowledge of the rules.
RESULTS: We included 22 studies (5-RCTs, 1-non-RCT and 16-single-arm trials), conducted in emergency care settings in six countries (USA, Canada, UK, Australia, Ireland and France). One RCT suggested that reminders may be effective at increasing clinicians\' use of Ottawa Ankle Rules but may also increase the use of ankle radiography. Two RCTs that combined multiple intervention strategies showed mixed results for ankle imaging and head CT use. One combining educational meetings and materials on Ottawa Ankle Rules reduced ankle injury imaging among ED physicians, while another, with similar efforts plus clinical practice guidelines and reminders for the Canadian CT Head Rule, increased CT imaging for head injuries. For knowledge, one RCT suggested that distributing guidelines had a limited short-term impact but improved clinicians\' long-term knowledge of the Ottawa Ankle Rules.
CONCLUSIONS: Interventions such as pop-up reminders, educational meetings, and posters may improve adherence to the Ottawa Ankle Rules, Ottawa Knee Rule, and Canadian CT Head Rule. Reminders may reduce non-indicated imaging for knee and ankle injuries. The uncertain quality of evidence indicates the need for well-conducted RCTs to establish effectiveness of implementation strategies.

BACKGROUND: Several validated decision rules are available for clinicians to guide the appropriate use of imaging for patients with musculoskeletal injuries, including the Canadian CT Head Rule, Canadian C-Spine Rule, National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study (NEXUS) guideline, Ottawa Ankle Rules and Ottawa Knee Rules. However, it is unclear to what extent clinicians are aware of the rules and are using these five rules in practice.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the proportion of clinicians that are aware of five imaging decision rules and the proportion that use them in practice.
METHODS: Systematic review.
METHODS: This was a systematic review conducted in accordance with the \'Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses\' (PRISMA) statement. We performed searches in MEDLINE (via Ovid), CINAHL (via EBSCO), EMBASE (via Ovid), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science and Scopus databases to identify observational and experimental studies with data on the following outcomes among clinicians related to five validated imaging decision rules: awareness, use, attitudes, knowledge, and barriers and facilitators to implementation. Where possible, we pooled data using medians to summarise these outcomes.
RESULTS: We included 39 studies. Studies were conducted in 15 countries (e.g. the USA, Canada, the UK, Australasia, New Zealand) and included various clinician types (e.g. emergency physicians, emergency nurses and nurse practitioners). Among the five decision rules, clinicians\' awareness was highest for the Canadian C-Spine Rule (84%, n = 3 studies) and lowest for the Ottawa Knee Rules (18%, n = 2). Clinicians\' use was highest for NEXUS (median percentage ranging from 7 to 77%, n = 4) followed by Canadian C-Spine Rule (56-71%, n = 7 studies) and lowest for the Ottawa Knee Rules which ranged from 18 to 58% (n = 4).
CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that awareness of the five imaging decision rules is low. Changing clinicians\' attitudes and knowledge towards these decision rules and addressing barriers to their implementation could increase use.

UNASSIGNED: The NEXUS-low-risk criteria (NEXUS) and Canadian C-spine rule (CSR) are clinical decision tools used for the prehospital spinal clearance in trauma patients, intending to prevent over- as well as under immobilization. Since 2014, a holistic telemedicine system is part of the emergency medical service (EMS) in Aachen (Germany). This study aims to examine whether the decisions to immobilize or not by EMS- and tele-EMS physicians are based on NEXUS and the CSR, as well as the guideline adherence concerning the choice of immobilization device.
UNASSIGNED: A single-site retrospective chart review was undertaken. Inclusion criteria were EMS physician and tele-EMS physician protocols with traumatic diagnoses. Matched pairs were formed, using age, sex and working diagnoses as matching criteria. The primary outcome parameters were the criteria documented as well as the immobilization device used. The evaluation of the decision to immobilize based on the criteria documented was defined as secondary outcome parameter.
UNASSIGNED: Of a total of 247 patients, 34% (n = 84) were immobilized in the EMS physician group and 32.79% (n = 81) in the tele-EMS physician group. In both groups, less than 7% NEXUS or CSR criteria were documented completely. The decision to immobilize or not was appropriately implemented in 127 (51%) in the EMS-physician and in 135 (54, 66%) in the tele-EMS physician group. Immobilization without indication was performed significantly more often by tele-EMS physicians (6.88% vs 2.02%). A significantly better guideline adherence was found in the tele-EMS physician group, preferring the vacuum mattress (25, 1% vs 8.9%) over the spineboard.
UNASSIGNED: It could be shown that NEXUS and CSR are not applied regularly, and if so, mostly inconsistently with incomplete documentation by both EMS- and tele-EMS physicians. Regarding the choice of the immobilization device a higher guideline adherence was shown among the tele-EMS physicians.

Cervical spinal (c-spine) injuries range greatly in severity from minor ligamentous injuries to osteoligamentous instability with spinal cord injuries. Initial evaluation begins with stabilization as needed and immediate immobilization. Current practice as to whether the c-spine can be cleared clinically without radiographic evaluation is often guided by using the National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study Low-Risk Criteria and the Canadian C-Spine Rule. Under these clinical decision guidelines, stable trauma patients presenting with alcohol intoxication cannot have the c-spine cleared clinically and imaging should be \"considered.\"
This study aimed to assess the frequency of computed tomography (CT) c-spine scans ordered for patients presenting with alcohol intoxication to the emergency department (ED), the timing of the studies, and subsequently determine the proportion of which showed a clinically significant result that required intervention.
In this retrospective medical record review, all clinically alcohol-intoxicated patients presenting to two academic EDs were included. Overall demographic characteristics, time to order of CT imaging, radiology reads, and outcomes of patient visits were determined.
There were 8008 patient visits included in the study. Of these visits, 5 patients scanned in ≤3 h had acute findings on CT scan and no patients with a deferred timing of CT scan after patients metabolized had an acute finding on CT scan. No patients required operative management.
This study\'s results suggest that it is a safe clinical practice to defer CT imaging for patients presenting to the ED with alcohol intoxication and low suspicion for c-spine injury per history and examination.

Spinal trauma is an important cause of disability worldwide. Injury to the cervical spine (CS) occurs frequently after major trauma. 5-10% of patients with blunt trauma have a cervical spine injury. The cervical spine accounts for ~ 50% of all spinal injuries. Determination of CS stability is a common challenge in the acute care setting of patients with trauma. Several issues, indeed, are of particular concern: who needs CS imaging; what imaging should be obtained; when should computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), or flexion/extension (F/E) radiographs be obtained; and how is significant ligamentous injury excluded in the comatose patient. CT and MRI both have roles to play. This article aims to present the different imaging to frame techniques to be used with greater precision in the acute event also for the purpose of planning the next therapeutic process. An overview of the applicability of the same methods in forensic pathology is also provided highlighting possible future biomarker to ease in diagnosis of acute TBI.

The incidence of cervical spine injury in patients with polytrauma is 3.7%. Early identification and management of cervical spine injuries in these patients play a crucial role in preventing secondary cervical spine and cord injuries. C-spine clearance assumes a pivotal role in reducing the morbidity and mortality associated with cervical spine injury. Despite the availability of various validated management algorithms and protocols for C-spine clearance, there are several controversies regarding C-spine clearance, such as the ideal protocol and imaging modality, clearance of obtunded patients and management of patients that lie out of the described protocols and rules. The current article aims to provide a comprehensive review of the relevant literature and address the prevalent controversies.

BACKGROUND: Each year, half a million patients with a potential neck (c-spine) injury are transported to Ontario emergency departments (EDs). Less than 1.0% (1/100) of these patients have a neck bone fracture. Even less (1/200, 0.5%) have a spinal cord injury or nerve damage. Currently, paramedics transport all trauma victims (with or without an injury) by ambulance using a backboard, cervical collar, and head immobilizers. Importantly, prolonged immobilization is often unnecessary; it causes patient discomfort and pain, decreases community access to paramedics, contributes to ED crowding, and is very costly. We therefore developed the Canadian C-Spine Rule (CCR) for alert and stable trauma patients. This decision rule helps ED physicians and triage nurses to safely and selectively remove immobilization, without x-rays and missed injury. We successfully taught Ottawa paramedics to use the CCR in the field in a single-center study.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to improve patient care and health system efficiency and outcomes by allowing paramedics to assess eligible low-risk trauma patients with the CCR and selectively transport them without immobilization to the ED.
METHODS: We propose a pragmatic stepped-wedge cluster randomized design with health economic evaluation, designed collaboratively with knowledge users. Our 36-month study will consist of a 12-month setup and training period (year 1), followed by the stepped-wedge trial (year 2) and a 12-month period for study completion, analyses, and knowledge translation. A total of 12 Ontario paramedic services of various sizes distributed across the province will be randomly allocated to one of three sequences. Paramedic services in each sequence will cross from the control condition (usual care) to the intervention condition (CCR implementation) at intervals of 3 months until all communities have crossed to the intervention. Data will be collected on all eligible patients in each paramedic service for a total duration of 12 months. A major strength of our design is that each community will have implemented the CCR by the end of the study.
RESULTS: Interim results are expected in December 2019 and final results in 2020. If this multicenter trial is successful, we expect the Ontario Ministry of Health will recommend that paramedics evaluate all eligible patients with the CCR in the Province of Ontario.
CONCLUSIONS: We conservatively estimate that in Ontario, more than 60% of all eligible trauma patients (300,000 annually) could be transported safely and comfortably, without c-spine immobilization devices. This will significantly reduce patient pain and discomfort, paramedic intervention times, and ED length of stay, thereby improving access to paramedics and ED care. This could be achieved rapidly and with lower health care costs compared with current practices (possible cost saving of Can $36 [US $25] per immobilization or Can $10,656,000 [US $7,335,231] per year).
BACKGROUND: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02786966; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02786966.
UNASSIGNED: DERR1-10.2196/16966.

BACKGROUND: Although \"spear tackling\" is known to be a risk factor for cervical spine injury due to axial loading of the neck, and although this technique was officially banned from American football in 1976, football-associated cervical spine injuries continue to be reported. This case highlights the importance of recognizing high-risk mechanisms for cervical spine injury, and specifically the danger of spear tackling among football players at all levels.
METHODS: A 16-year-old male high school football player presented to the pediatric emergency department for a neck injury sustained after spear tackling during a football game. He had no neurologic symptoms and met the NEXUS criteria for omitting x-ray evaluation. However, the description of spear tackling as the mechanism of injury led to the ordering of cervical radiographs, which revealed a C5 fracture. The patient was ultimately taken to the operating room for internal fixation, with a final surgical diagnosis of a C5 teardrop fracture. On outpatient follow-up at 1 year, the patient has had no neurologic sequelae. WHY SHOULD AN EMERGENCY PHYSICIAN BE AWARE OF THIS?: This case serves as a reminder that all evaluations of trauma patients should begin with an attempt to determine, as precisely as possible, the mechanism that was in play at the time of injury. The reassurance provided by a normal physical examination may be misleading. Spear tackling is not an uncommonly encountered cause of injury in American football, despite the practice being prohibited since a rule change in 1976. Continued education and increased awareness of the association of axial load injury with spear tackling may make it possible to avoid missing a potentially devastating cervical spine injury.

To update findings of the 2000-2010 Bone and Joint Decade Task Force on Neck Pain and its Associated Disorders (Neck Pain Task Force) on the validity and reliability of clinical prediction rules used to screen for cervical spine injury in alert low-risk adult patients with blunt trauma to the neck.
We searched four databases from 2005 to 2015. Pairs of independent reviewers critically appraised eligible studies using the modified QUADAS-2 and QAREL criteria. We synthesized low risk of bias studies following best evidence synthesis principles.
We screened 679 citations; five had a low risk of bias and were included in our synthesis. The sensitivity of the Canadian C-spine rule ranged from 0.90 to 1.00 with negative predictive values ranging from 99 to 100%. Inter-rater reliability of the Canadian C-spine rule varied from k = 0.60 between nurses and physicians to k = 0.93 among paramedics. The inter-rater reliability of the Nexus Low-Risk Criteria was k = 0.53 between resident physicians and faculty physicians.
Our review adds new evidence to the Neck Pain Task Force and supports the use of clinical prediction rules in emergency care settings to screen for cervical spine injury in alert low-risk adult patients with blunt trauma to the neck. The Canadian C-spine rule consistently demonstrated excellent sensitivity and negative predictive values. Our review, however, suggests that the reproducibility of the clinical predictions rules varies depending on the examiners level of training and experience.

BACKGROUND: The Canadian C-Spine Rule (CCR) is a clinical decision aid to facilitate the safe removal of cervical collars in the alert, orientated, low-risk adult trauma patient. Few health care settings have assessed initiatives to train charge nurses to use the CCR. This practice improvement project conducted in a secondary trauma center in Canada aimed to (1) train charge nurses of the emergency room to use the CCR, (2) monitor its use throughout the project period, and (3) compare the assessments of the charge nurses with those of emergency physicians.
METHODS: The project began with the creation of an interdisciplinary team. Clinical guidelines were established by the interdisciplinary project team. Nine charge nurses of the emergency room were then trained to use the CCR (3 on each 8-hour shift). The use of the CCR was monitored throughout the project period, from June 1 to October 5, 2016.
RESULTS: The 3 aims of this practice improvement project were attained successfully. Over a 5-month period, 114 patients were assessed with the CCR. Charge nurses removed the cervical collars for 54 of 114 patients (47%). A perfect agreement rate (114 of 114 patients, 100%) was attained between the assessments of the nurses and those of physicians.
CONCLUSIONS: This project shows that the charge nurses of a secondary trauma center can use the CCR safely on alert, orientated, and low-risk adult trauma patients as demonstrated by the agreement in the assessments of emergency room nurses and physicians.